Rajasthan Court September 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abdul Basheer (Shri) Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1025
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These two cross appeal arise out of the impugned judgment and decree of partition dated 18.02.1981, whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur decreed the suit for partition filed by Abdul Kadar S/o Ismail Khan, Smt. Hameedan and Smt. Nazeeran against the defendant No. 1 Kamrud-din, purchaser of a portion of the property in the possession of defendant No. 2 Abdul Basheer, defendant No. 3 Abdul Hakeem and defendant No. 4 Abdullah, all later three being sons of Azimulla, who was son of Ismail from his first wife.2. The plaintiffs are descendants from the second wife of Ismail Khan and during the pendency of the suit itself, the son Abdul Kadar died and his LRs, namely plaintiff No. 1/1 Abdul Kareem and 1/2 Abdul Shakoor were brought on record.3. The plaintiffs Abdul Kadar and others filed the suit on 05.07.1979 claiming share in the property left by Ismail Khan, namely 4 shops situated at Chaukdi Topkhana Hazuri, Jaipur having Chabutara ...
New Prajapati Briks Company Through Proprietor Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1109
N.K. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the second appeal as well as on merits of the second appeal also.2. This is plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for permanent injunction in respect of property, in dispute, which has been dismissed by both the Courts below.3. The case of plaintiff was that he purchased the property, in dispute, by way of agreement (Exhibit-1) from Jethanand and he is in possession of the same. It was further contended that he has water, electricity and telephone connection over the land, in dispute. The trial Court has observed that it is correct that the defendants have not filed any written-statement, but it is a duty of the plaintiff to prove his own case. The plaintiff has not placed on the record allotment-letter issued by the Custodian Department in favour of Jethanand, from whom the plaintiff is alleged to have purchased the land in disput...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Smt. Kartiyani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR62]; 2008(2)WLN43
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These two appeals are against the same order by two different departments of the State Government raising the same issue and are being heard and decided together.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 13.08.1997 allowing the family pension to widowed mother of deceased incumbent Miss Vasanthi Kumari, who was working as Lady Health Visitor, at Primary Health Center, Swaroopganj, and died while in service on 19.08.1990 after having rendered qualifying service of 18 years 7 months and 22 days. She had entered in the service on 27.01.1972. The claim for family pension to the widowed mother of the deceased employee, having no other nearer persons surviving to family pension, had been rejected on the ground that under Rule 268D, the family pension to mother of the deceased Government servant is not admissible.3. The learned Single Judge held that Section 268D cannot be read in isolation but has to be read with Sections 265 and 267 RS...
Satya Narayan Garg Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Pyare Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1189
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This is defendant's first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure code against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 2.7.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Ajmer decreeing Civil Suit No. 389/85(18/79) whereby the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for arrear of rent and eviction.2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff, Kanhaiya Lal Pyare Lal Gotewala gave his portion of property situated at 1193/28, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer to M/s. Mala Tiles whose proprietor at the relevant time i.e. on 16.7.1971 was Smt. Krishna Gupta, defendant No. 1 and her power of attorney holder, Shri Satya Narain Garg, defendant No. 2, who was also close relative, namely, sister's husband of defendant No. 1, Smt. Krishna Gupta, looked after the business of manufacturing of the tiles in the said suit premises. The rent was paid @ Rs. 175/- per month and in the first instance, the rent for six months was paid by the tenant vide receipt (Ex. 1...
Damodar Ropeways and Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3261
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. An advertisement inviting applications from interested parties for construction of Ropeways was published on 4.10.2005 in Newspaper Hindustan Times and Dainik Bhaskar dated 7.10.2005 under the Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act of 1966')- Copy of this advertisement has been placed on record as Annex. 1. The petitioner gave his bid and submitted letters Annex. 2 and Annex. 3 also to the District Magistrate, Udaipur. The petitioner also deposited requisite amount of Rs. 1000/- vide cash receipt challan Ex. 4 dated 3.11.2005. The notices were issued for three projects, namely, (1) Deendayal Park-Manikya Lal Verma Park Machla Magra near Kami Mata Mandir, (2) From Foot hill of Dewali to Neemuch Mata and (3) Motir Magri to Nehru Garden. The petitioner applied only for the Deendayal Park- Manikya Lal Verma Park Ropeway. According to the petitioner, 5 bidder companies gave their offer in response to the above mentioned ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kota Builders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)332
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act' hereinafter), at the instance of Revenue, whereby the following question of law arising out of the order dt. 28th Oct., 1988 in ITA Nos. 461 and 462/Jp/1987 has been referred for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on trucks at the rate of 40 per cent as against 30 per cent allowed by the ITO.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is a contractor engaged in business of construction of roads and buildings. During the relevant asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83, the assessee claimed depreciation on two trucks owned by it at the rate of 40 per cent. The claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO for both the years i.e., 198...
ibp Company Limited and ors. Vs. Kissan Service Centre and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj843
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the order dated March 20, 1997 of the learned Single Judge whereby the orders dated January 18, 1997 of the appellant company terminating dealership of the respondents were declared as not sustainable.2. Contextual facts depict that appellant company granted licence of retail outlet dealership for the sale of various products of the appellant company to the respondents and the respondents started selling petroleum products. The appellant company vide letter dated January 18, 1997 terminated the retail outlet dealership of the respondents.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. In the letter dated January 18, 1997 the appellant company indicated thus:Please be advised that as per Clause 23 (g) & (i) of the said Dealership Agreement, your RO Dealership stands terminated forthwith.5. Clause 23 of the agreement reads as under:23. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein before contained the company shall be entitle...
Chhinder Kaur @ Chhipkali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj840
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Chhinder Kaur @ Chhipkali and Roop Narayan @ Roopa, the appellants herein, have impugned the judgment dated November 27, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Roop Narayan @ Roopa:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 120B IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 309 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Chhinder Kaur Chhipkali: Under Section 120B IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 309 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on April 20, 2002 Roop Narayan...
Santosh Gupta (Smt.) Vs. Govind Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1049
R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two appeals are from the judgment and order dated 2.6.2006 passed by the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur and, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Govind Gupta and Santosh Gupta (here-in-after to be referred as 'husband' and 'wife' respectively or by their first name) married on 4.12.1985 at Gangapur city in accord with Hindu customs and rites. Out of the wedlock, the daughter (Pragati) was born in the year 1986 and the son (Prateek) was born in the year 1994. The marriage between the parties did not get along well despite the birth of two children and that both of them have been living separately for many years is an admitted position.3. On 12.6.2002, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage and divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion.4. In his petition, the husband set out the acts of the wife which according to him caused ...
Jamna Singh and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ650
ORDERG.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 23-5-2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City in criminal revision petition No. 29/2006 whereby the order dated 17-3-2006 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City has been set aside and the matter has been remanded for further inquiry and for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that a written report was submitted by one Varun Singh on 19-4-2005 at the police station Hindaun City against the petitioners and one Nawab Singh regarding an incident dated 18-4-2005 wherein his cousin Satyapal had died. After investigation, the police filed a negative final report. The, respondent No. 2 Shiv Charan filed a protest petition. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City recorded the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »